Re: Wolter on peer review.



Tom McDonald wrote:

[..]

It
is possible that the folks who reviewed his stuff were not
competent, or were not paying attention, or owed him a favor. It
is possible that Wolter got criticism that he should have taken
to heart and changed his reports accordingly, and didn't.

However, one cannot assume that, and I don't think there is
evidence of any of that in this case. If one were concerned, one
could contact the named individuals and ask them (except for Dr.
Mather, of course).

Talk about preparing to prop up the pre-Columbian brick wall again!!
First sling baseless *** at Wolter personally (he doesn't know
competent people to review his work) and label 8 personas as
"INCOMPETENT" - then resort to a weak counter, in much lesser strength
than the *** slinging and TOM talks about "professionalism" - but he
doesn't resort to the same himself!

As he belatedly states "I don't think there is evidence of any of that
in this case" - then WHY make the totally baseless allegations in the
first place? It is to PLANT THE SEED of doubt for others followers of
his Dogma to create fictions, eg like Doug Weller's odious implied
"Nazi supporter" view and like madness Tom has previously supported!


[..]

--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
.

Loading